Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
compromise with the enemy. it is not going to happen. it is a terrible environment for the big deal that needs to get done. so acknowledge the reality. let's do the deal in 2013 but let's not cause a recession. basically just extend current policy to the extent policy and hope we get 2013 intact. that is my goal. >> doug, let me throw out a theory to get your reaction. the theory is this. that as long as the discussion about tax reform is an ongoing argument about the bush tax cuts -- >> i'm so tired of the bush tax cuts i can barely stand it. >> i think most people would agree. >> they have been talked about for 10 years? can we talk about something else? >> that is exactly the point. as long as you have extended the bush tax cuts, as donald said, only half of this is about the bush tax cuts. >> right. >> but in the public discussion it is the bush tax cuts. so as long as you extend them, can you get out of that debate? conversely if you let them all go. >>, does that change the framing of this we're no longer talking about the bush tax cuts, we're just talking about the tax code a
a good thing going for 70 years in that part of the world. it's in that environment in which these tremendous economic transformations of one asian state after another can take place. we welcome that. we think that's a good thing. we want to keep going with that. that's what it's all about. so, you know, on both of those questions, stanley, all i can say is, watch. >> okay. one more question. how about in the back there, the rand hazed. -- hand raised. i'm trying to be equal opportunity per section to have audience here. >> thank you. i'm tom with the american-asian society and the affairs council. you talk about the need for peaceful resolution of disputes. i wonder if you could elaborate a bit about what stan roth referred to in the south china and east china seas where china's assertiveness is causing so much concern? >> sure. well, we see that, and i think we have a very principled position on all of this. you know, first of all, people say we don't take sides in these disputes, but that's not true. we actually do take a side. we take a side for freedom of navigation and
environment, you know, fill in the blank. now, again, this is something that we could debate about at great length, but i assume that if you like federalism defined as some degree of subnational autonomy where people can make decisions rell thetively free -- relatively free of national override, then our constitution does a dreadful job in protecting local autonomy. you might, on the other hand, believe in some areas we have too much local autonomy as a political matter and would want to address that in a constitution. you mentioned cities that are very interesting. texas is six times as large as the entire united states population in 1790. we in austin especially are familiar with the tyranny of a centralized government in austin itself called the state government that often seems determined to deprive the city of austin of autonomy over matters that we hold near and dear. so i think that to the extent that federalism does stand for a principle of decision making at subnational levels and allowing people to participate if decisions that effect their lives, then any modern constitutional co
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)